Curriculum For Under 5s

[Guest]

Did anyone see an item in last week's Guardian under the heading "What would you put on a national curriculum for under-fives"?

 

A teacher suggested the following.

 

"I think the idea is rubbish, ridiculous. I would wipe my child's bottom with any official national curriculum for pre-school children that came through my door!

For under-fives, the main responsibility lies with the parents, the most important people in the child's life. Here is what should really be on their curriculum:

Talking to them from birth, all the time, and taking their dummies out so they can talk back. Giving them a routine and the security of discipline. Not being afraid to say no; somebody has to be in charge and it has to be the adult, children can't cope with being in control even if they like to push against the boundaries. Feeding them good food when they are hungry, but not panicking if they miss a meal and not making mealtimes into a battle. Acknowledging that they get fearful. Teaching them politeness. Letting them fail and realise that getting it wrong sometimes is not a disaster. Giving them responsibility, but not beyond their years. Letting them get used to their own company and liking themselves, Giving as much love as you can, because you never spoil them by loving them. Going by your instincts and not being hidebound by what other people say."

 

 

At pre-school we agreed with a lot of this!

 

 

Anita

[AnonyMouse_3139]

Sounds good to me Anita. Common sense teaching

[Guest]

Dear Anita,

I agree wholeheartedly with what the teacher has written but I also think that the papers have really got hold of the wrong end of the stick and taken things out of context.

Yes, children should learn to play and communicate and understand the routines and boundaries, develop respect and understanding - but don't we already have that in our curriculum. Most of what we do is common sense which unfortunately seems to allude a lot of people nowawadays including parents, their main carers. Just how many more programmes can they produce about little tearways. The fact is that more and more children are entering school/pre school with poor communication skills, with poor eating habits and little respect for others. There are hundreds of reasons why this happens - too many to go into here and so often we are left to pick up the pieces. I believe it is not enough to say that is their parents responsbility - of course it should be - with us there to support them but we know that this sometimes does not happen - and therefore we should be trying to help by providing a warm and safe environment where they can both learn that there are boundaries and routines, where they need to be respectful of other people and encourage good health and hygiene practices. I really beleive that we have a very a major and responsible job to do in both educating and helping the parent and the child achieve all these things. There are lots of approaches to this and one size does not fit all - but we need to achknowledge that there are immense pressures placed upon parents and sometimes they cannot always rise to this challenge for whatever reason. I think the QCA foundation stage curriculum just puts into writing all the things we actually do naturally with the children - I am not too sure what the new plans or curriculum will entail but for me I am relatively happy with the current "curriculum" - obviously it is open to interpretation but I do feel that most of us here deliver a "curriculum" that is suitable for children - perhaps the word curriculum needs to be reassessed as it does often sound too formal.

Nikki

[Guest]

Totally agree Nichola,

 

The trouble with the term "curriculum" is that this means "a course of study", a "programme", it has a start and an end.

 

What I believe we offer children is primarily the safety, security, and care to enable a positive disposition and attitude toward LIFELONG learning.

 

By using a curriculum we are placing children into boxes, and expecting them to perform to specific criteria, in specific learning areas. By segregating the different areas of learning we are not easily able to look at the "whole" child. We lose the holistic view of learning because of this, which goes against the natural way children learn.

Yes, as we get older we can "specialise" or atune ourselves mentally to focus on specific subjects, but for the young child I just wish their progressive knowledge was not defined by seperate learning areas.

 

I would like more focus made on childrens "attitudes" to learning, not on how they conform, but how they are motivated, enthused and interested in their own "eureka" moments of discovery. But how is this measured in terms of the "Curriculum" ???

 

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Dear Peggy,

I love the phrase "eureka" moments of discovery. It's such a fantastic feeling to witness this in children and I strive to make that happen as often as possible. However, I find myself victim of having an agenda/"curriculum" I have to work around and whilst I take the curriculum guidance to the foundation stage as my focus - I do take the word quidance quite literally - the word "guidance" is just how I feel about it - guidance - not written in stone. Does this make sense? However, sometimes I question myself as to whether I am achieving all that I should be with the children as I know I have to continually assess what they are doing and always in the back of my mind there is this "curriculum guidance". But perhaps I could say that I am just reflecting on my practice - which is after all a good thing.

 

My favourite quote from my research is the definition of "health" (and I mean this in the very broadest sense, not just physical) as given by the World Health Organisation and that is:-

 

“ the extent to which an individual or group is able on the one hand, to realise aspirations and satisfy need; and on the other hand, to change or cope with the environment. Health is therefore, seen as a resource for everyday life, not an object of living, it is a positive concept emphasising social and personal resources, as well as physical capacities”

 

Seems to me that this sums up what we should be striving to achieve with all our children but somehow this message for some seems to have got lost in the curriculum guidance - for without health these children have nothing and no matter what curriculum or guidance you throw at them the outcomes will remain unchanged.

 

Over to you Peggy

 

Nikki

 

Hey Peggy I would love to get on a subject where we both have differing opinions as I would love to debate with you - can you think of anything contentious as I always seem to be agreeing with you.....

[Guest]

"Hey Peggy I would love to get on a subject where we both have differing opinions as I would love to debate with you - can you think of anything contentious as I always seem to be agreeing with you....."

 

How about "The written word Versus Verbal / visual Communication"

 

Lets ban books, alphabet, jolly phonics etc from school until age 8+

Instead we focus our curriculum on the development of verbal / visual communication skills and imagination, creativity and thinking skills.

 

Story time without books, (ever)

Conversation time - in pairs, small or full group - talking, listening, thinking, asking questions etc - child led subjects of conversation. We do do this but not enough.

 

My rationalle behind this is that I think that adults, let alone children, do not have conversational skills anymore. Text messages have helped us to lose the use of descriptive language.

Let's time warp forward a 100 yrs - all communication with computors, household machines etc will be by verbal command. We may even develop "telepathic" abilities. So we will need to learn to think in a comprehensive way, placing our thoughts into legible order. Our thoughts may even be able to be "downloaded" onto CD (or the modern recording version of a CD). We will not have the need to "write" anything, our history recorded in thought.

or will we......what do you think?

 

Peggy

p.s. is that radical enough??

[Guest]

Sorry Peggy you must think me really rude not have replied but i have been inundated with study work and really haven't had the opprtunity of coming on here at all. I know I would then spend much too much time doing something that would not help me get through my finance and business law modules. Am nearly at the end of it now - have two weeks break after 17 January where I can put my books down and do some playgroup work.. so no doubt I will be back on line. So apoloiges if there are other replies wanted out there but I will endeavour to catch up - story of my life........

 

Actually I don't think that this is radical at all as for the 100 years well in my house I can see it happening already. I used to think that MSN chat room was a good idea - kept my teenagers wandering the streets, doing nothing and they could keep in touch with their friends etc. However, they treat this as an everyday communication tool - they are unable really to see what impact their words are having on people and as an e-learner know how this can go badly wrong. As we know teenagers just don't seem to realise and be able to recongise the warning signs particularly when emotions are becoming high and then cannot understand when it blows - I am talking about me and my kids now, although I understand it to be a general teenager phenomen(?) - by using only the written form of communincation this can be lost and they may never develop this skill or tune into other peoples emotions - so actually I have to say that I don't think you are being radical at all. How often do we hear children say "I can't see the pictures" - well they don't always as you say need to see the pictures, they need to concentrate on listening -

 

by the way have you tried that story time development by the children yet -sounds really interesting - I would like to give it a go - haven't printed it off yet but glanced through it but will definitely make a go of this one - sounds great.

Nikki

 

 

Try me on something else.

Nikki

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Hey Peggy I would love to get on a subject where we both have differing opinions as I would love to debate with you - can you think of anything contentious as I always seem to be agreeing with you....."

 

How about "The written word Versus Verbal / visual Communication"

 

Lets ban books, alphabet, jolly phonics etc from school until age 8+

Instead we focus our curriculum on the development of verbal / visual communication skills and imagination, creativity and thinking skills.

 

Story time without books, (ever)

Conversation time - in pairs, small or full group - talking, listening, thinking, asking questions etc - child led subjects of conversation. We do do this but not enough.

 

My rationalle behind this is that I think that adults, let alone children, do not have conversational skills anymore. Text messages have helped us to lose the use of descriptive language.

Let's time warp forward a 100 yrs - all communication with computors, household machines etc will be by verbal command. We may even develop "telepathic" abilities. So we will need to learn to think in a comprehensive way, placing our thoughts into legible order.  Our thoughts may even be able to be "downloaded" onto CD (or the modern recording version of a CD).  We will not have the need to "write" anything, our history recorded in thought.

or will we......what do you think?

 

Peggy

p.s. is that radical enough??

44086[/snapback]

[Guest]

Hi Nichola,

We do seem to agree, have a similar mind set.

 

I have a "chip" on my shoulder about how early years professionals are "judged" depending on what "Academic" qualification they hold. This weeks Nursery World, letters page said it all for me. A practitioners question on why leaders of Childrens Centre's have to have a Teacher qualification. I am not against people having qualifications, it is just the apparent narrow mindedness of some professionals who think you are less able / skilled if you don't have them.

 

As you are an avid studyer, I'd like to ask what motivates you to do continuous study?

 

I was absent from school during my last year, too busy working in a hairdressers, so left with no qualifications.

As a parent, I got involved with early years and got the PPA Foundation course ( I presume equivalent to NVQ 1) This enabled me, at the time to become a Supervisor. 5 years experience later, I went to college part time and did the ADCE, then recognised as Level 4. ( totally skipped level 3) I enquired about gaining teacher qualification but wanted to do it at Nursery, not Primary School ( couldn't afford to leave work) and I don't have an inclination to work with over 5's. No joy, Therefore QTS is not available to me, but would, I think, give me more status. ( this is what I disagree with)

 

At one point in my career I was an Early Years Advisor ( DLO days) working for the Education Authority and paid £18,000. After 2 years I was made redundant and replaced by EYAT's, I inducted them and yes, they had "Academic, curriculum" knowledge, but no idea of the day to day dilemmas of working in a hall environment, with limited resources, possibly committee dynamics to deal with and/or sole trader / business responsibilities etc etc.

I had previously done a good job, but government deemed that Qualified Teachers were more able to do the job than me. ( and at a rate of £23,000 )

 

I have considered taking a degree, the Foundation Degree is not a route for me as I already have equivalent CAT points from my ADCE and CERT ED. I don't need a degree (yet) to continue my professional development in terms of career promotion, so why do I still feel I have to do it ( at an unaffordable expense)? because I feel without it I do not have respect, status and value from the professionals who Inspect, advice and "teach" me how to do a job I have been doing. I often find when literature arrives about this or that "good practice" is that I already think that way, I already understand the principles ( ie: BTTM is not new it is what a lot of us have done for years).

 

I'm waffling now. My point of discussion is Should we be judged as less able because of lack of "recognised" qualifications?, and I mean at degree level. What do people at our level gain from doing degree's apart from extra workload?

 

 

Over to you.

 

Peggy

 

p.s. Just like to add that I was recently asked to "Teach" year 3 students at our local prestigious Teacher Training University. The subject being "Assessment", these are students with degrees, who will be "Teaching" in Primary Schools next year. They had little knowledge of the principles behing observation and no practical experience of doing observations. One student asked me "How many Observations should I do on each child?" My reply was "How long is a piece of string?" . We observe to gain knowledge, so we observe as many times as it takes to gain that knowledge." I am going back to give them some sessions on observation methods as using the right method for the focus of the observation will reduce the number od times observations are required to enable them to gain the information they need. (phew-long sentence)

I was honoured to be asked to do these sessions with these teacher trainees but was somewhat bemused that the fundamental skill of observation ( a teachers basic tool to do his/her job) had not been taught, even though they were in their 3rd year of teacher training study.

[Guest]

Peggy,

 

My daughter did a 4 year course. In the last term, undefined after they'd been told they'd passed, they did a short block on the Foundation Stage. The coverage of child development was low to non-existent. She was the only one in the group who'd even heard of schemas, for instance. Now I'm not knocking teachers - I've seen how hard my daughter works, the abuse she has to take from parents from time to time, the pressure she under etc. But it does make you wonder, doesn't it. There are more & more 'experts' being appointed to 'support' us, but not,as you say, at a comparable salary to ours!When will they invest in those who actually work with the children? We are still sorely underresourced.

 

Oh, yes, I don't think I'm imagining some of these people seeming to see me in a different light since I graduated! But as I don't have QTS - and undefined try to get it, I'm not eligible for those jobs! I don't want one anyway - someone needs to stay with the children.

 

That's my long-winded, ranting way of saying I agree with you!

[Guest]

Peggy,

 

My daughter did a 4 year course. In the last term, undefined after they'd been told they'd passed, they did a short block on the Foundation Stage. The coverage of child development was low to non-existent. She was the only one in the group who'd even heard of schemas, for instance. Now I'm not knocking teachers - I've seen how hard my daughter works, the abuse she has to take from parents from time to time, the pressure she under etc. But it does make you wonder, doesn't it. There are more & more 'experts' being appointed to 'support' us, but not,as you say, at a comparable salary to ours!When will they invest in those who actually work with the children? We are still sorely underresourced.

 

Oh, yes, I don't think I'm imagining some of these people seeming to see me in a different light since I graduated! But as I don't have QTS - and undefined  try to get it, I'm not eligible for those jobs! I don't want one anyway - someone needs to stay with the children.

 

That's my long-winded, ranting way of saying I agree with you!

45368[/snapback]

 

Hi,

I'd like to add that I am not knocking teachers either, I don't envy their job at all especially as I feel their initial training doesn't fully equip them with the knowledge and skills to understand and observe child development - I also acknowledge that they have a year as NQT's with training and support "on the job".

I really loved my job as an advisor and do miss it sometimes.

[AnonyMouse_4544]

As a teacher I would like to say that I agree too. qualifications dont mean everything. My big 'soapbox' rant is why can people who have never worked with children be 'fast tracked' into teaching (often with subsidies) while people who have years of experience and are very good at doing the job are not considered for this route!